On Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Mario Kadastik wrote:
> If EMI does not want to "force" sites to use an specific
> batch system (which I don't quite understand), they should at
> least support the best options, and Slurm is probably the
> best (free) one.
>
>
> One other option would be that if the integration of a scheduling system
> and CREAM is documented well enough, then third party integration could
> be possible.
Indeed this is something that should be improved.
CREAM itself doesn't need to know anything wrt the batch system. It just
interacts with BLAH which does the job.
And there is already something in place for the integration with BLAH:
https://twiki.cnaf.infn.it/cgi-bin/twiki/view/EgeeJra1It/BLAH_guide
Then there are the configuration modules (yaim), the info provider, the
accounting part.
Just for information: a while ago the guys from Lyon were able
to implement the support for BQS
Cheers, Massimo
> So sites interested in Slurm deployment could collaborate to
> create the slurm integration scripts, but to do that one would need to
> know what is the data that CREAM needs and how it communicates... Though
> getting it officially would be way better because that means that it'd be
> future proof...
>
> Mario Kadastik, PhD
> Researcher
>
> --- "Physics is like sex, sure it may have practical reasons, but that's
> not why we do it"
> -- Richard P. Feynman
>
>
>
\|||/
-----------0oo----( o o )----oo0-------------------
(_)
INFN Sezione di Padova
Via Marzolo, 8
35131 Padova - Italy E-mail: massimo.sgaravatto [at] pd.infn.it
Tel: ++39 0499677360 Skype: massimo.sgaravatto
Fax: ++39 0498275952
|